Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-pceps-07 available

From: Jonathan Hardwick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 15:21:53 +0000

Hi Robert

(I'm answering as WG chair.)

Sorry for the slow reply.  I would expect the progress of draft-ietf-pce-pceps through to RFC to be reasonably fast, so I'm not sure early code point allocation should be needed.  The main risk would be a conflict with the stateful PCE drafts, should the new message in the PCEPS draft be allocated a clashing code point with the values that the stateful drafts have "recommended" for their messages.

I think it is possible that PCEPS will leap-frog stateful PCE on the way to RFC, so I think the best way to proceed is to obtain an early allocation for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce and draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp.  To do this we would only require help from the stateful draft authors (e.g. you) to answer any questions that IANA has about your text (which would happen sooner or later anyway :-).  Would you like us to start an early allocation for these drafts?

Best regards
Jon

From: Pce [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Robert Varga
Sent: 21 January 2016 21:48
To: DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-pceps-07 available

On 2016-01-21 15:07, DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA wrote:
Hi,

We have just uploaded a new version of draft-ietf-pce-pceps (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pceps/)

We believe this new version addresses all the comments received from the SECDIR review after the last call period, and other pending ones provided by Tom while that SECDIR review was taking place. As far as the authors can say, the document is ready to progress.

Hello,

would it make sense to request an early codepoint allocation for use in implementations?

Thanks,
Robert

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 17:06:52 +0000

Diego

Looks good with one slight query.  I commented before on the use of
'client' in s.3.5 which suggested an asymmetric protocol, where the PCE
checks on the PCC needed to be more stringent that those of the PCC on
the PCE.  I notice that one of the 'client' has gone but one has not and
there is still a 'PCC' in there so it still to me carries the flavour
that PCE checking of the PCC is more important than the other way round.
I do not know if this is ok or not, how it lines up with the threat
model.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 2:07 PM

Hi,

We have just uploaded a new version of draft-ietf-pce-pceps
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pceps/)

We believe this new version addresses all the comments received from the
SECDIR review after the last call period, and other pending ones
provided by Tom while that SECDIR review was taking place. As far as the
authors can say, the document is ready to progress.

Be goode,

--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/

e-mail: [email-masked]
Tel:    +34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
----------------------------------